- Date published:
7:50 pm, February 12th, 2013 - 126 comments
Categories: racism - Tags: richard prosser
Prosser, just f*cken resign. There’s no place for the likes of you. You’ve been elected purely to make up numbers for Peters. And you couldn’t even do that without being a disgusting bigot. You’re not the only rightwinger playing up race fears. Hooton claims Indonesia will invade due to climate change. Key tells scary stories of made-up boat people. But you’re the worst. Just go.
PS. I’m still not regretting that NZF is back in Parliament. Without them, National would have a majority alone. Avoiding that’s worth having to deal with a racist and Horan. Plus we get Tracey Martin and she’s gold. Actually it’s going quite well. If NZF collapses this term, having done its job in 2011, it means no Winnie kingmaker in 2014, which improves the odds for a Labour-Green government.
He is a bigot first .Second what has this man done to expect to be part of ruling of New Zealand ????
looks like Labour has a little problem with it future coalition partner. This latest deplorable attack on a minority is no different than Winston anti Chinese rants.
That only leaves the Green Taliban. That means giving up the Finance minister position.
Labour might as will stay at its rightful station. As the opposition.
Yep and memo to Labour. We cannot go into coalition with these bastards. Between their refusal to accept that climate change is occurring and their innate racism they are a bunch of losers.
As has been noted previously, your good self along with the majority of the labour caucus would fellate Winston within an inch of his life if he was the difference between the treasury benches and three more years in opposition
Nope HS if the treasury benches depended on Prosser’s support I would say no way. But I am sure Key would not be so principled this time …
HS Prosser’s a tosser – you would have more of a chance than him and you’ve got sweet F A
I’m not a NZF supporter and certainly think dickhead Prosser should be fired as an MP.
But since when have they (NZF members) refused to accept that climate change is happening? Or do you mean they don’t accept that anthropomorphic CO2 emissions are causing out of control global warming? I would say pretty much everyone accepts that climate change is occurring, just as it has done for the last 4.5 billion years.
You should probably not generalize either. When you say “their” innate racism, you’re implying that they are all racist? Hey, you could be correct, but “they” don’t all seem that extreme to me; and I certainly haven’t seen any racist NZF policy documents.
They’re not all bastards either.
Such imagery. Sublime.
“Out-of-control” – nice pinhead you’re dancing on, btw.
Didn’t you know? Prosser thinks global climate change is a crock of shit. That’s basically how he talked about it on the campaign trail in 2011.
this man is unbelievable a nd a great embarassment, along with Peters (“the twin evils of diversity and multi-culturalism” ) Is he drunk all the freakin time? And Prosser-“this is my country”??? and there is no “man-made climate warming”???. UNFREAKIN-BELIEVABLE. wotta lost soul that Wishart is!
NZ First’s racism does attract some people…it might ensure kiwi_prometheus’ vote goes to them
Some people? I know more people who have some variant of these Neanderthal views than people who don’t.
The NZ First list did have a kind of “eh, who cares, no-one’s going to get in other than Winston” look about it.
Great post, Zet! Amazing that Winston would dump a bloke currently only accused of wrongdoing while keeping an actual knuckledragging racist on board. Even Wishart seemed to disown him (saying on that 7 whatsit show that if he’d been awake when he skim-read the piece, he’d have edited it for human consumption or somesuch).
edit: video here: http://tvnz.co.nz/seven-sharp/investigate-editor-reacts-nz-first-mp-s-anti-muslim-column-video-5340077
Investigate’s editor doesn’t even investigate what he’s publishing? Why am I not surprised?
He’s a bigot not a racist as ‘being a Muslim” is like “being a Catholic”…i.e. belonging to a certain (world wide, hence multi racial) religion. Although he’s clearly stupid enough to think that someone can ‘look like a Muslim’ and therefore should be kept off planes (between certain ages and if male I think the craziness goes).
Though you know, because it’s really late and I up with a sick child and not thinking that straight…there may well be a certain type that should actually be kept off planes…dress in suits, usually short, male, self important plonkers with loud braying voices, computers and Iphones..often hauling along a bit of eye candy about the same age as their rug…you know the ones that crashed the World’s economy 4 years ago and counting…the ones with their expensive Italian leather handmade shoes on the throats of the poor…Keep the Bankers off the planes I say!
Child asleep. Nite nite Standanistas
The “Wogistan” reference would indicate his bigotry is both anti-Muslim and racist. “Wog” is a term of racial vilification, probably second in offensiveness only to “nigger”.
Does anyone have a link to Hooten’s comments about Indonesia out of interest?
He was banging on about it here yesterday: http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/audio/2546069/politics-with-matthew-hooton-and-mike-williams
Can’t listen to that right now – watching the cricket.
But I do know that the threat of war/invasion due to a changing climate is a very real threat…if not to New Zealand but in the wider context.
From what I remember Hoots wasn’t really saying Indo would invade, he was more saying that if climate change was real, which it obviously isn’t, then we’d be at risk from invasion eventually, and if those stupid Greenies really thought climate change was real then they should be more focused on defense, but he doesn’t care because it’s all a big hoax anyway.
Or something like that.
For what it’s worth, I agree with him – and you. (Not about climate change being a hoax, about the need for more focus on defense as an isolated food producing country in a rapidly changing world.)
I don’t think climate change is a hoax.
I’m not sure Hooton does either. Not from anything I have read of his (which isn’t comprehensive admittedly).
Sorry TC, didn’t mean to suggest that you did. I meant I agreed with you about the potential for threat of invasion, not with whatever opinion Hooton is being paid to have on climate change.
Yeah I think we’ll be OK but in the worst case scenario a lot of places will find themselves under some extreme pressure from their neighbours.
Not a pleasant vision of the future.
For what it’s worth I thought Hoots was for once making a valid (if somewhat mischievous) point.
While I think it implausible we’ll see lots of Indonesian boat people anytime soon; it’s not unrealistic to think that in maybe a few decades large shiploads of refugees from anywhere on the planet might start arriving in numbers. That poses some pretty intractable tactical problems for us because by the time they arrive in our territorial waters, it’s too late to send them anywhere else.
Given that shooting them out of the water isn’t a good option, perhaps we could let the people stay … but scrap the ship. The world would pretty soon run out of suitable ships and the process would be self-limiting?
Surely if these people make the journey at great risk to themselves and their families because they are escaping ‘whatever’ then they should be looked after – I don’t really get why that is so difficult – is it a bunker mentality perhaps.
That’s exactly what I said. The ‘shooting them out of the water’ crack is black irony.
But exactly how many refugees would you be happy to see here? Got a number in mind?
No the number is irrelevant and focusing on that is focusing on scarcity – I’d rather try and look after those less fortunate, scared witless, suffering people and if that means some rich arseholes lose their second or third house to put people in I say good!
edit – oh and maybe some of the dairy farmers can cut their cows down and the land could be used for the common good instead of their selfish greed too.
It wholly depends on the systems we set up to receive and integrate them, and what we as a nation expect from them.
But at an absolute maximum responding to extreme humanitarian circumstances, I would suggest 1 refugee per year per 500 resident NZers.
That’s 9,000 refugees per year.
9,000 per year … or a couple of big ships. At most.
I’d want to see how many people NZ land can sustain, bioregion by bioregion, and then we can think better about who we can welcome.
Yep. Could we physically do much larger numbers? Sure, for a short time. Maybe 100,000 pa for a year or three. But that would end real quick with a political or social backlash.
yeah so each according to their need is only for some, preferably those like *us*. Any number is bogus because it automatically implies triage and a grasping of privilege for those already here, maintained at the expense of those who really need help. Why is any particular person here more deserving than someone arriving in need of help – they aren’t in my book.
lol ‘social backlash’ – from who?
just another nimby argument cv
You’re right of course MM. But too many NZers are just fine with NZ children hungry and in poverty. What makes you think they would give that much more consideration to children from far away lands.
yeah, it is. And at a certain stage, a political party is going to use it very effectively and throw the other lot out. No refugees then.
Not really, because as you know, we can’t even apply this to New Zealanders.
Well MM so no upper limit? OK … there will be around 9b people on earth sometime soon. If say 20% of them become climate refugees, that’s 1.8b people.
If just 5% of them decide to come to this country, then that’s oh … 100m people. (Back of envelope guesswork … feel free to insert your own assumptions)
How do you imagine that might work out ? In terms of who really owns this country?
I’m not being mischievous, just tossing around some sense of the magnitude of the challenge and what choices we might face.
It just sounds like a version of yellow peril to me red.
My conclusions within this thread are based on NEED and the ability to get here through the almost insurmountable hardships and difficulties, not putting planes on to fly them here.
If 0.5% decide to come to NZ that’s 10M people. You know in a situation like that RL, some ugliness will be inevitable.
and I am not meaning to imply racism here in any way. I agree it is a big problem that we need to think about and get ready for. I just think the opportunities to help people outweigh the fear of being overrun.
Yellow peril? It’s precisely the same scenario Maori faced in the 1840’s … there were only some several hundred thousand of them and the European colonisers, while sailing in tiny, dangerous ships from the far-side of the planet, numbered in their tens of millions. And we’re still trying to mop up the consequences of that.
Numbers are not racist.
very ironic indeed
as tangata whenua have somehow retained the culture and as that culture has evolved into what we see today, I’m sure ‘kiwi’ culture will do the same if it robust enough and if it actually exists
on the bright side, it would sort out the 2050 retirement bubble problem.
Less flippantly, though, I don’t reckon that all that many folks would actually be in a position to make the trip, and I similarly think that those that try for NZ would still be in deep strife, like they would be today if they tried (our glorious leader’s “intelligence” notwithstanding).
We still need to start using our land sustainably, though. Move away from cows and start planting environment-suitable crops. I wonder if olives or dates would grow well in canterbury? Apply the same methods that put wine in Central Otago.
Let’s not forget that when Hooton raised that issue, it was completely unrelated to what was being discussed. He only raised it to have a go at the Greens because they are the only party pushing properly left wing policies.
He then went on to sing the praises of David Shearer. Hmm.
I presume he is pursuing this campaign because he, and the Right, are shitting themselves that real left wing ideas might start getting traction in NZ.
His thinking will be: If National can’t get a third term then at the very least the growing Green influence must be minimised in the next Labour led government.
“But I do know that the threat of war/invasion due to a changing climate is a very real threat…if not to New Zealand but in the wider context.”
Yes, but the US is likely to get in first. Anyone commenting on an American invasion of NZ once tshtf?
The US prefers to expand its empire through political and economic domination, not occupation. It does use it’s many international military bases to project both military might and act as economic incentives to the host country, however.
China is the same. China doesn’t want to be an occupying colonial power like Britain, Spain, France or Belgium was. You don’t need to be in this globalised world of trade and capital flows that they created.
At the moment. We were talking about when the CC/PO resource wars start. You may be right though. Another term or two of NACT and I’m sure all sorts of things will be set up that we don’t know about so that when tshtf we will become a state of the US rather than an occupied territory.
During severe climate change, the last thing any country in the world is going to have the resources to do is mount an ultra-long range seaborne invasion, presumably followed by mass colonisation. Far more cost-efficient to try to shore up what they have.
Of course, there will be resource wars in neighbouring countries but a situation like Hoots dreams of is just nuts.
And he knows it, it’s just an excuse for him to claim that the Greens are not genuine about climate change (because they don’t support the military investment he claims is needed), and, therefore, climate change isn’t real.
I’m not so sure James. The lights won’t go out all over the world all at once … and while things may well be going to hell in the proverbial hand basket … there will still be plenty of resource for the powerful and desperate to grab a hold of to use for foreign military adventures. Especially if there is a nice juicy prize waiting for the taking.
And first in, first served.
I think we’re in for some very unpleasant surprises.
You formulated it better than I could RL.
Consider ancient empires like the Romans. Even as their massive empire collapsed, even as its territories and budgets shrunk, even as it’s legions were being tested and found wanting, its politicians continued to pour more and more resources into its military and finding ways to augment it including hiring mercernaries.
All at massive cost to its society, all in the hope of holding empire together and finding a way out of a poor dead end.
And yes, the final collapse of the Roman Empire was not fast, it took centuries for its last remnants to disintegrate.
And we better be well prepared.
Try this CW
I think that its one of the driving factors behind the rapid development of drone warfare.
Thanks CV. I deleted my comment because I decided it was too depressing to contemplate without offering any solutions.
Ah, I see we’ve hit the end of thread bug again….
It seems that the only thing that can save us is another ‘Carrington event’ – an eruption from the Sun of such great intensity it burns out all electronic devices and grid infrastructure.
We are about due for one but they are terribly unpredictable and the next one may come too late to save us from the industrial-military-financial complex and its perpetual war machine.
Exactly, history shows us that climate change causes wars. And if the more extreme forecasts of catastrophic climate change came true, especially if they happened quickly so mitigation measures (dykes etc) could not be undertaken in time, then of course there would be a global conflagration worse than World War Two, and New Zealand would certainly come under threat of military invasion (boat people are neither here nor there – any boat people who make it all the way to NZ have more ingenuity and talent than the average person brought in under the business migrant scheme so that I reckon they should be allowed to stay). So when politicians say they believe in sudden 10 metre sea level rises unless Kyoto gets expanded to the US, China and India (which it never will be), then they be asked what their defence policy is, and if they say they don’t believe in a massive military build up then it raises the question of whether they are really serious about what they say about climate change.
yes the politicians and their minions will use any and all issues to push their agenda of increased spending to their mates and pet projects. Climate change is just one issue used to argue that bigger defense budgets are needed and spy budgets too – it is an old story but still effective whilst the society, in which they are kings and queens, unravels in front of their eyes.
Some sense from Matthew, well done. It would be nice to see all the whole mainstream commentary take the realities of our age seriously.
The moral question this issue poses is something like:
You are in a lifeboat, there are 10 of you with room for 30 more. There are 5000 people in the water swimming towards you.
Now for sure you can take on the extra 30, and maybe another 100 could cling to the sides for a while. But 5000 will send you all into the sea.
Pausing to take on the 30 nearest swimmers will likely mean that many of the 5000 will also arrive.
Row like hell?
Grab onto anything that floats and pray methinks.
your framing of the question is not correct at all red imo. You can live, you can die, you can live, you can die – what basis are you deciding – first in, like the look, let’s see your passport – it is all rubbish. What moral right do you have to decide – zero. It seems similar to the people that hide in a bunker and after everything is devastated they come out to rebuild – I’d rather die with the people than survive with the bunkerites.
so I suppose I’ll get chucked out of your liferaft – and I can live with that
That’s a perfectly fair answer mm. Certainly you have the right to make that decision for yourself and I would respect that. If that meant jumping or being pushed overboard you’ve certainly made a moral choice that you will likely die with. How that squares up with you depends I guess on your view of the life of the human soul … and whether this life is all that matters.
But would you impose that decision on the nine others in the boat with you? In other words this question has a political as well as a personal dimension.
I would fight against a policy that closed the boarders to those in need and I would fight hard. I will also fight against increased defense to ‘protect’ us and the way of life that so many love even as it disintegrates around us. I will additionally fight against what I consider bogus arguments by some (not you because I believe you are genuine in your concern) that exaggerate the issue to further entrench the privilege they enjoy.
we all die red the question is how we live
lol. It is ironic how you advocate for a special place just for Maori in New Zealand due to first in first served and the treaty yet here you walk away from that principle.
Malleable principles depending on your own personal circumstances. How surprising.
I wouldn’t be too chirpy vto. I think mm was giving honest answers to a very tough question. Perhaps a question that doesn’t have an answer. Expecting perfect logical and moral consistency from humans is a tough call.
But mm did put up his hand to state what he believes and I respect that….
The two approaches do not match up RL. Your particular scenario here may have been a tough issue however the placing of various races within one boundary for an indefinite period is equally tough.
“Expecting perfect logical and moral consistency from humans is a tough call.” That’s right. It’s tough and few measure up.
It’s okay red vot is a dickhead and doesn’t have many clues – I have tried to be honest to your honest comments and I know that we both know that. Kia kaha.
I’d like to think the three of us would likely enjoy a few beers and good korero if we could….
lol maybe on that bloody lifeboat as the two of you levered me over the edge… but seriously as far as I can work out we all have more commonalities than differences as is often the case. I am a bit naughty with vto – I shouldn’t wind him up so much – but it is fun and hard to resist especially when he gets on his high horse – my bad, must try harder to be nice 🙂
I’m a believer that we need to be strengthening the Defence Forces to be a strong territorial and local pacific operator, not stripping men and women out and civilianising it. Nor equipping it to fight faraway wars on behalf of faraway imperial powers.
most sensible for a change
I think the rich and famous are already doing this aren’t they – I mean coming here and buying a bolthole with the govt putting a nice bunch of flowers on the table to welcome them in.
Had a couple of cracks at bigotry in its various guises over last longish period and the conclusion arrived at, especially in light of this from someone who clearly has clues about life in other spheres, is that racism and race relations (and most forms of bigotry) in this country are a cesspit. Bubbling and stinking. Nobody wants to go near it. Nobody can understand what is at the bottom of it. Everybody drops their own form of shit into it and says their neighbours shit is the shit that stinks. It is horrid, putrid, and pervades everything so much that people hold their nose whenever someone pokes their head up from the cesspool. It is a mess, unfathomable and should be filled in. It is a blinkin’ joke. Everything about the entire issue is ridiculous and everybody sees nothing, hears nothing and speaks nothing. It is a big fucking nothing and everything.
Oh shut up you sanctimonious wanker – ‘cracks at bigotry’ lol – what did you do tell yourself off in the mirror.
go fuck yourself
*poor impulse control*
Evidence of the stinking pile of shit that is bigotry amongst all parts of the New Zealand population lies right here in front of the noses…. bigotry from Prosser in fact comprised three parts, yet it was only one that the dumb majority take offence to. The other two forms of bigotry, namely against the young and particularly the male, have been completely ignored.
stinking pile of shit for brains this entire issue
There seems to be a real lack of quality control when Parties choose their MP representatives. This guy is just an idiot, then there is Horan. What was going through Winston’s mind when he chose these guys???
I’d say the process goes like this:
a) are you here for the NZF AGM (the croquet adjunct is next door)?
b) do you have a large cheque on your person?
c) Congratulations, you’re on the list.
None of this is surprising.
Richard Prosser’s views are not sotto voce rumours, they’ve been published in a magazine for years (a joke magazine, but still … it’s on the supermarket shelves).
His views were known when he got on the list. Known when he got into Parliament. Well known now, and of course well known before the next election campaign.
It wasn’t a surprise when ACT’s candidate for the Sensible Sentencing Trust turned out to be a time-bomb. It wasn’t a surprise when a party (United Future) based on a merger with religious nutters turned out to contain … religious nutters. And it’s not surprising that NZ First brought at least one bigot into Parliament.
That’s why I don’t vote for them, and don’t want them in the next government. Labour and the Greens shouldn’t want them either.
What is telling for me is that Winston hasn’t sacked the guy immediately. When it all boils down, Winston has shown himself to be not much better with his veiled attacks on Asians over recent years. I think any party who ties themselves to NZ First will be tainted by association.
Is he allowed to sack someone for his personal views? (free speech and all that). I’m not saying he shouldn’t be sacked because in my opinion he should. But am wondering on the whole legal side of sacking someone. Although obviously he can be dropped as a party member immediately.
I would suggest that neither National or Labour would care less about being tainted if it meant being in Government or not.
Don’t worry about it. Winston would be expelling the bastard from NZ First, that’s all. Prosser would still, lol, be an MP and fully employed.
Not much different from that guy who went on about immigrants spitting in the street. In fact, Peters claimed that that guy stole his immigration policy.
I think you voted for that dude didn’t you. Don Brash his name was. Remember him? kept going on about ‘Mainstream’ this, ‘Iwi/Kiwi’ that.
The same political discipline that created 20 years or more of doing fuck all about climate change will probably mean that the yanks aren’t much of a worry until they’re in no position to do anything. I think they see drones as a panacea for the issue they were getting into (where losing one bomber or ship might suddenly make an entire conflict uneconomic), but whether than comes to fruition is another issue. And drones can’t occupy ground, even land-based ones.
China’s been playing the long game with global land buy-ups. But then that’s just acquisition, same as Roman conquest: it’s whether keeping that land is possible that becomes the question.
Ironically the likes of Prosser would find living in an Islamic theocracy to be very appealing.
Women made to cover themselves up, no booze allowed, criminals get their hands chopped off, the death penalty, homosexuals strung up, no abortion or divorce, adulterers stonesd, Koran required reading in schools.A Family First/Sensible Sentencing Trust utopia.
More likely a perfect match for the conservative party. (swapping the Koran for the bible of course)
Lolz you gotta love the bloke don’t you, Prosser that is, on a boring night you can see Him on Parliament TV,(the only time Winston unchains Him and takes off the gag), raving like a loon about the particular hair that has become ingrown and tickling what passes for His brain,
This all is actually becoming quite fun, commenting on another web-site prior to the 2011 election i was going against the grain as usual and while all and sundry were saying that a vote for NZFirst was a wasted vote blah blah blah and the media’s opinion polls were casting NZFirst at 3.5% of the vote i was telling all and sundry, Wrong NZFirst would romp back into the Parliament with at least 6.2% of the vote,
Here’s my pick for NZFirst for the November 2014 election, 4.2% maximum, 3.5% minimum, remember that wont you,
Zetetic has hit the nail on the head as to why NZFirst was and is the gift that keeps on giving, the presence in this Parliament probably stopped the National Party from having the ability to Govern alone, instead the Slippery lead national Government had to take on coalition partners that are either anathema to the wider electorate and/or the electorate that they were imposed upon or by being part of such an abysmal shyster Government the coalition party has all but disintergrated,
Winston has just about done his dash, most of the fires burned out now and what used to sound combative now just sounds repetitive, tired and boring, Brendon Who with all the charm of a snake-oil salesman and the smile that went on and off faster than a strobe light on a 1980’s disco dance floor who had aspirations,(snigger),of being the leader and who incidently is probably the only one of them other than Winston who might have been able to keep NZFirst in the Parliament after Winston, has been efficiently disposed of and accusations of raiding Mum’s stash will suffice for now as to why He got the bums rush,
And now Richard Prosser,(take a bow Richard), has done the hard yards, solving the small conundrum of leveraging NZFirst apart from a slice of it’s vote, i almost want to send the retard flowers i am so impressed with His ability to turn a racist phrase and turn off a slice of His Party’s vote that no matter the amount of weasel words just wont be back,
Sad to say, or glad to say, times up Winston, we resurrected you for a purpose which you have now fulfilled, an announced retirement with grace, or the undignified removal of NZFirst at the 2014 election is the 2 choices you are down to,
NZFirst 4.2% at the 2014 election, that’s what i say…
Probably not far off, bad.
I’m a bit surprised Winston didn’t drop Prosser as quickly as Horan, though. It’s one thing to even do a stand-down until things blow over, but trying to defend the guy is a bit much, even for the Asian Invasian dude.
Probably thinks the bigot vote is more reliable than the financial scandal vote. Or maybe thinks that losing one MP can be regarded as bad luck, but losing two might be regarded as careless (to nick from Wilde).
Oh Horan was a knee-jerk from Winston, there’s 2 threads there, ones a this is my Party ego trip, and the other is a genuine fright about the loss of the retirement belt’s vote,(lolz there is also more to that picture than meets the eye that is better left unsaid for now),
The board of NZFirst were reportedly unhappy with Winston’s decision to send Brendan Who off to Siberia, the rumor being is ‘they’ thought that was their little power game to play,
Lolz i would also like at this stage to thank Wishart for being a crap editor asleep at the wheel, not that i really believe He would have edited Prosser’s little diatribe out of the edition,(it will probably be the biggest seller of all time for that particular rag),
So Winston isn’t sacking anyone without the ‘boards’ approval for the foreseeable future and while Brendan Who sit’s there alone He is mostly ignorable, 2 of them tho occupying Siberia would have Slippery slavering in anticipation,(He would probably gift Tauraunga to Horan to get 2 votes in the next Parliament)…
there is no “New Zealand” first! anymore; this self-reliant individualism nonsense is being our undoing, thread by thread.
You have been drinking.
Ah such wit and stunning style of writing are seldom seen gracing the pages of the Standard…
Discussion about racism or the idiots we have in parliament serves an important purpose: it keeps people from thinking about or discussing things that really matter -like what people are going to eat when the industrial food system collapses (each other?) or at what point the Earth becomes largely uninhabitable due to positive feedbacks induced by out-of-control CO2 emissions (2040 or 2060?)
I am sure there will be plenty ‘more bread and circuses’ over the coming few years -well mostly circuses and not much bread.
It is very difficult to know who would win from the (welcome) disappearance of NZ First.
Initially I thought it would be National – on the grounds that, if he had the balance of power, he would back a Labour/Green Government.
Then I thought that Labour/Green would win because Peters would ultimately back National, so he could be the number two not number three party in a coalition.
A new theory is that if he falls below the threshold, then there would may only be three parties in parliament, so all National has to do is win a handful of more votes than Labour/Green combined.
I have written all three theories up and the NBR has kindly paid for all three.
In the end, the main winner from Peters and his little band of racists, fascists and just plain morons leaving parliament would be New Zealand.
PS. I think you have misunderstood my comments about the imminent Indonesian invasion. My point is that National and Labour don’t believe we face any risks, so they don’t spend much on the military, but that if you believe in imminent catastrophic climate change, flooding Indonesia and making much of South and Central Asia uninhabitable, then you would think we were at risk of full-scale military invasion over the next half century. But I don’t, so I don’t.
Speaking of a little band of racists, fascists and just plain morons leaving parliament, are you equally keen on seeing the end of ACT, Matthew?
That’s an academic question these days isn’t it?
You’re in a better position than most to know the answer to that question! Me, I think desperation will see National dance with the zombie at least one more time.
“That’s an academic question these days isn’t it?”
What about the Conservative Party? how do you feel about that little band’o’bigots?
I answered that one last year: http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/conservatives-should-share-love-around-118577
I think that’s the wrong piece, or at least, I can’t see how it adresses the question at all. perhaps you could clarify it here.
The question is, do you think Colin Craig’s little band of bigotry would be a good thing to have in our parliament? A secondary Q would be, should the National party help them out, or ally with them?
It’s no good saying he shouldn’t be a bigot, or offerring advice about how he might get into parliament.
I think the column entirely answers your question about what I feel about that band of bigots. Should they be in parliament? Well, it could be amusing. As long as they never had any actual power.
For the rest of us who aren’t going to bother reading your article, can you just answer those questions here please?
The one I’m interested in is “should they be in parliament?” which isn’t asking “should they be in parliament if enough people vote for them”, or “would it be funny if they were in parliament”, it’s asking “do you think it would be good for the country to have them in parliament”.
If you don’t want to take two minutes reading my column, I don’t see why I should take three minutes to answer your question. You see, I’m not accountable to you in any way.
Who are you accountable to, Matthew?
So you view us as both material for your columns and an audience for linkwhoring. That’s the trouble with tories – all too willing to slaughter the sheep for a quick buck, rather than gently shear it every year.
I wouldn’t have thought it would take more than a few seconds to type an answer to “would it be good for nz to have a party I’ve already described as a bunch of bigots in parliament”.
But then I don’t have to check my invoice book before I answer simple questions about my opinions.
Yep. Can’t see how could take longer to answer the Q, than to type:
unless the ‘answer’ was a waffley weasel of a not saying anything.
Winston has always had dodgy (some incredibly dodgy) ring ins on board, and as said upthread his parliamentary return did the service of denying the Nats a total majority. It is up the left to generate enough support for next election despite him.
The “Left” generating support hmmm. Reading this column and the round condemnation of the “racist” “moron” (plus all the other epithets offered) you might wonder how the “Left” might garner support?
I suggest the clear winner of this little missive about “Wogistan” is Winston. It is worth votes, and his mans words actually strike a chord that the “Left” has failed to anticipate and address. Lets get real: whether we like it or not there is a large segment of the voting public who fear “terrorists”. There is a large sector of the voting public who fear “foreigners” and “illegal immigrants” (especially if they are “darkies”). And given the prevalent propaganda of fear foisted on us all by the media who can blame them.
Recently I got very pissed off that I had to queue to go through “security” to get on a plane, and asked the blokwart on the scanner if he had ever caught a terrorist. This elicited a reply that I was out of order and that the threat was real (plus a threat to use his “powers” to detain me). What this unpleasant exchange reiterated to me was the very real acceptance by my fellow travelers in any threat. Not a head nodded support for my position, reaffirming general acceptance of a “threat”.
Whilst Winnies man goes on about “Wogistan” I dont hear Shearer declaring that we have been duped into paranoia. I dont hear the “Left” putting the fears of a large sector of the electorate to bed. Nor addressing some of the very real fears raised (such as there being a generation of terrorists out there : albeit raised most likely by US policy).
So we (quite rightly) shoot the messenger, take the high moral ground and ignore the recipients. These people then vote for Winnie. Haven’t we done well!
Well described. It is but one matter in this area which just goes whoooosh over the left’s heads. Some heavier thinking is needed by the left to, as you say, understand the “non-left” view on these things and then to articulate their own position taking ito account that non-left view.
May even lead to some more votes
“we get the leaders we deserve” -Major Campbell Roberts ( “NZ has not learnt from history and do not have the right leadership to overcome problems”) IN todays Dom.
Prossers comments though somewhat crude underline a challenging dilemma for both Liberal and Conservative proggressives in how to identify and deal with the latent and blatant racisim present in all of us .His provocation also invites discussion of how we approach the inevitable conflicts of values generated a by the presence of a Muslim diaspora in our society.
Liberal Progressives have a sharper dilemma generated by our instinct to defend Muslims because of an overiding obligation to the principle of equal consideration of interest within our society . We are at the same time challenged by elemets contained in Islamic digma repugnant to liberal values – a case in point is misogamy
Both Liberal and Conservative progressives are challenged so by the fact that many within the Muslim diaspora here are at one with the aspirations of Islamic states in their resistance to Americam hegemony . The United States of America is our principal ally to which New Zealand owes a permanent debt of gratitude for its very existance .after the Americans prevented the Japanese invasion of our country . New Zealanders cannot ant will never resile from that debt
Prossers outburst may represent simply the resentment many people feel at the inconvenience of heavy handed airport security after 9/11 or possibly a deeeper resentment sourced from the attacks by Muslims on vulnerable targets in countries allied with America . However retaliotory they may have been , they were acts of war perpetrated by Muslims .targeting Non -Muslims
It may not be rational but it is reasonable to accept that many people identify Muslims as being responsible for the public affront to their privacy and freedom every time they catch an aircraft .
These and other issues require sober analisis both by our Muslim diaspora and by those interested in its presence here . Hysteric denunciations of a clumsy messenger will not unravel or salve the sources of tension highlighted by New Zealand Firsts MP .
Thanks, I say pretty much the same above: the issue for the “Left” is mind share. We have not dealt to this issue well, and as you say our liberal thinking is compromised by reality.
More Wars of Religion to come.; Get used to it. Paybacks are a bit*h
You must be thrilled that RNZ Morning Report went straight to……George Galloway MP for a comment on Prosser! The man who was thrown out of the Brit Labour Party after cuddling up to Saddum Hussen. I also wonder if you can produce a headline without f*ck in it? The left are no fans of any debate are they.
is this a response to someone? what is your point?
Roger, why don’t you watch Galloway’s testimony in front of the US Senate, which will show you to be completely ignorant and uninformed and basically, a twat.
Galloway sticks it to the hearing hard and good many many times.
The underlying problem isn’t “terrorists” or “floods of boat people”, but global inequalities and the grabbing of wealth and resources by the “elites”.
Countries like NZ have international aid policies that foreground the benefits to their own country’s trade, rather than policies to lessen global inequalities. Consequently people in poorer countries will be looking for greener grass. And global inequalities provide part of the impetus for recruitment by “terrorists”.
The solution is to provide more income and wealth equality between and among countries – but, given the grip on power by the “elites”, I don’t see that happening any time soon.
Without them, National would have a majority alone.
What difference would that make? Between Banks, Dunne and the MaoriNats they’ve got a majority for anything they want to do. If anything, they wouldn’t have the excuse for toxic ACT policies like charter schools or for keeping Banks as a minister.
Some good insights in this thread, imo
Time to stop pussy-footing around the point. Start calling Prosser’s attittude (and that of his fellow-travellers) what it is: anti-Semitism. There’s no difference between the hysteria generated against the Hebrews and their religion eighty years ago, and that generated against the Arabs and their religion today. Once put into that perspective, it may become clear to the easily-led of Prosser’s fellow-travellers just what agenda it is that they have been fooled into supporting.